We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482, 743 A.2d 1275, 1280 (1999). "To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case.

To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482 (1999) (citations and quotation omitted). [1-3] The rape shield doctrine generally prohibits introduction of evidence concerning the prior consensual sexual activities of sexual assault victims.

" Based upon the record before us, we conclude that, to the extent that the defendant argues that the evidence was admissible to show bias, that issue is not preserved for our appellate review. See State v. Dodds, 159 N.H. 239, 244, 982 A.2d 377 (2009) (preservation requires a "contemporaneous and specific objection" and any objection not raised at trial is deemed waived (quotation omitted); see also State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 484–85, 743 A.2d 1275 (1999). The third issue raised by the defendant is whether the trial court erred by not allowing the defense to introduce evidence regarding alleged "prosecutorial overreaching."

E.g., Monday v. State, 792 So. 2d 1278 , 1281-83 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (victim-witness’s prior consistent statement was admissible for rehabilitation, because it could be useful to jury for credibility finding); James v. Commonwealth, 360 S.W.3d 189 , 205-07 (Ky. 2012) (prior consistent statements of victim to detective admissible to rehabilitate credibility, not as substantive evidence); State v. Young, 743 A.2d 1275 , 1277-81 (N.H. 1999) (victim’s prior consistent statements were admissible to rebut defendant’s allegation of victim’s improper motive to fabricate the occurrences of sexual assault); Tombroek v. State, 2009 WY 126 , ¶¶ 5-13, 217 P.3d 806 (physician’s testimony on two statements made by victim identifying the individual who had sexually assaulted her were admissible as prior consistent statements)

See State v. W.J.T. Enterprises, 136 N.H. 490, 493 (1992). That determination is an issue of fact for the trial court, see id., and we will not reverse its evidentiary ruling absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion, State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482 (1999); see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining "unsustainable exercise of discretion" standard). It is clear from the record that the State offered the challenged testimony about the content of the victim's notes to explain how she had disclosed the information to her classmate and why she felt comfortable doing so. It is also clear that the trial court overruled the defendant's objections to the testimony specifically on that basis.

"We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482 (1999). "To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case."

To establish that a trial court has abused its discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of the defendant's case. See State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482 (1999). The trial record indicates that the inquiry of the victim's mother concerning her failure to report her suspicions to the authorities was limited to the period of time after the discovery of the letters.

To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482 (1999) (citations and quotation omitted). Although not ruled upon by the trial court, the State contends that the victim's assertion satisfies the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the hearsay rule.

To show an abuse of discretion, the defendant must demonstrate that the court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case." State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482, 743 A.2d 1275, 1280 (1999) (citations and quotation omitted). Hearsay may be admitted under the residual exception, if it is "[a] statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions [in Rule 803], but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness."

"We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Young, 144 N.H. 477, 482, 743 A.2d 1275, 1280 (1999). To satisfy the first prong, "[a] court must find first that the declarant intended to make the statements to obtain a medical diagnosis or treatment."